This invention is related to U.S. Patent No. 4,939,726, issued July 3, 1990, under the same title as herein. The invention relates generally to a method for routing data packets through a packet communication network. The instant invention is a specific improvement related to geographic addressing schemes.

Packet communications is a form of data communications whereby segments or packets of data are routed with error checking and confirmation of receipt directly or relayed via relay stations between a source node or station and a destination node or station. Several methods of data packet routing are known. According to one method, the address in the header of the packet is used as an index to a directory of packet routing lists. Packet routing lists must be prepared with knowledge about the location of each node in the network. Each node is identified by a header identifier. A packet routing list consists of an ordered list of packet node identifiers or call signs. Directory-based routing schemes require continued maintenance and communication of network interconnectivity information employed in the directory. Each of these functions drains network resources and can become intractable in a large network. However, one of the advantages of directory-based routing techniques is that it permits optimization of routing for a wide variety of network parameters, including data delay, throughput, reliability, priority and the like.

Another basic routing technique is the nondirectory-based routing technique. In nondirectory-based routing, the complexities associated with routing techniques are avoided. There is no connectivity information, which thus simplifies construction of each node. However, nondirectory-based routing techniques do not permit network parameter optimization.

The following patents were uncovered in a search of prior art with respect to the subject invention: Inventor Patent No. Date of Patent Otomo et al. 4,074,232 February 14, 1978 Sanders, Jr. et al. 4,135,156 January 16, 1979 deCouasnon et al. 4,168,400 September 18, 1979 Maxemchuk 4,516,239 May 7, 1985 Cohen et al. 4,525,830 June 25, 1985 Maxemchuk et al. 4,534,024 August 6, 1985 Gable et al. 4,550,402 October 29, 1985 George et al. 4,644,532 February 17, 1987 Lea et al. 4,661,947 April 28, 1987 Lambarelli et al. 4,663,758 May 5, 1987

The Maxemchuk patents of Bell Laboratories teach the use of data packet systems over cable television networks and also teach the use of variable length packets for voice. The George et al. patent to IBM teaches the use of routing notes utilizing the topology of the network. The Sanders patent teaches the use of satellite communications whereby messages are routed via a local relay station. The Lea patent to Bell Labs teaches the use of a self-routing packet switching network. None of these patents suggest routing based on a node identifier which employs absolute geographic location indicia in the identifier for use in establishing routing.

The remaining patents above relate to the general state of the art of packet communication.

A noteworthy background reference related to radio-based packet communications is the published standard for AX.25 entitled "AX.25 Amateur Packet-Radio Link-Layer Protocol," Version 2.0 (October 1984), Publication No. 56, American Radio Relay League, Inc., Newington, CT. This protocol is directed to the link layer or level 2 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) seven-layered reference model of Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) and is based on the CCITT X.25 level 2 LAPB protocol standard of Recommendation X.25 of the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT). The AX.25 protocol differs from the X.25 protocol in that the AX.25 protocol provides for repeater stations and repeater linking at the link layer, and specifically up to eight repeater stations under Version 2.0. Whereas the ability to address a destination via a prescribed repeater chain proved to be an advance for link layer protocols, the link remains susceptible to breakdown in linking if the chain is interrupted or changed. As will be explained hereinbelow, the present invention represents a substantial departure from an addressing protocol based on explicitly predefining a routing.

Additional background information can be found in the following references.

Mischa Schwartz, Telecommunication Networks: Protocols. Modeling and Analysis, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1987, Chapter 6. This chapter from a standard textbook describes the routing function of the Network Layer of the protocol. It provides a view of what is currently being taught to those skilled in the art, and it contains a particularly pertinent discussion of decentralized algorithms, of which the present invention is one example. Of interest is credit given to the lead inventor of the present invention on page 273.

Takagi and Kleinrock, "Optimal Transmission Ranges for Randomly Distributed Packet Radio Terminals," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Com.-32, No. 3, March 1984, pp. 246-257. The Takagi et al. article and the subsequently-cited article describe academic research relating to the problems of packet radio networks. Takagi et al. refers to state-of-the art analysis of the slightly different packet radio network, the slotted/non-slotted single-frequency ALOHA network first published in the early 1970's.

Hou and Li, "Performance Analysis of Routing Strategies in Multihop Packet Radio Network," (Conference Paper CH2064-4/84/0000-0487), IEEE, 1984. In this paper, the authors provide definitions and disclose a model for analyzing the throughput and forward progress of a multiple hop packet radio network. Routing strategies are demonstrated, and a specific strategy adopted in the present claimed invention, namely, "Nearest with Forward Progress" or simply nearest forward progress (NFP), is disclosed and analyzed. The conclusion is reached therein that the best strategy for propagating packets in a large network is NFP. It basically states that the overall best interest of a multihop packet network is served when each node uses the least power possible to maintain forward progress of a packet.

M.D. Busch, "NET/ROM for the TNC-2, Amateur Radio Version 1," May 1987. This paper is a printout of the documentation of the software for the current best low-cost commercial implementation of a packet radio network. The NET/ROM software was written by R. E. Raikes, (Amateur call WA8DED), and is sold by Software 2000, Inc. of Arroyo Grande, California. This documentation discusses for example one solution to the routing problem, namely, the use of routing-table-driven routing, the routing tables being created by the distributed algorithm at each node and then the updates to the table is propagated throughout the network. NET/ROM has been a very successful "Layer 3/4" implementation of a network, but it suffers the weakness of all large routing-table-driven packet networks: excessive system overhead related to dynamic adaptation of the network to changes. This documentation is provided to show the process of making routing decisions in a real-world implementation.

In a theoretical paper first published in March of 1987, less than one year prior to the effective filing date of this application, entitled "Routing and Addressing Problems in Large Metropolitan-scale Internetworks" by Gregory G. Finn, ISI Research Report ISI/RR-87-180 March 1987 (Marina del Rey, California) there appears a description of a Cartesian routing protocol of one form. The Cartesian routing protocol described therein associates a semi-unique ordered Cartesian location with each gateway (node) as part of a Cartesian address combining a location element and a gateway identifier. Position is represented by this location identifier and a metric distance is calculated between two such locations based on the location identifier. Specific reference is made therein to the use of latitude and longitude values as the basis of the Cartesian coordinate system. A hierarchy is suggested therein based on the hop range of reachable nodes in the network. The hierarchy suggested therein is used in conventional telephone networking protocols. The Finn paper is believed to be the only description of a packet routing protocol suggesting use of Cartesian geographical coordinates. Notwithstanding, this paper is not prior art to the subject invention under the patent laws of the United States.

Similar methods and systems are described in:

A

ICC'88 IEEE International Conference on Communications
S. Chandra et al. "Heuristic Scheduling Strategies for Multihop Radio Networks with Regular Structure"

A,D

Globecom '84 IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference Atlanta, US
T.C. Hou et al. "Performance Analysis of Routing Strategies in Multishop Packet Radio Network"

A

US-A-4 718 081 (T. Brenig).

According to the invention, each node in a packet communication network is uniquely identified by absolute geographical coordinates or by a code indicating absolute location in an external coordinate-based reference system (node coordinates), and such absolute geographical coordinates or the equivalent are employed as part of a packet identifier for each packet generated for use in making routing decisions (packet coordinates). The node coordinates of a local node and its neighboring nodes and the packet coordinates are used by means at each node through which a packet is routed for determining a desired forwarding route of a data packet. The routing may be prioritized according to preselected criteria, preferably achieving optimum forward progress, that is, maximum forward progress using the least amount of power and taking into account characteristics of the system.

The packet routing protocol according to the invention requires no routing directory or table to perform data routing. Each node of the network collects or is otherwise provided with information about the quality of communication between itself and its neighboring nodes within its communication range. When a data packet has been received at a node, it is routed further through the network based on criteria derived from the history of communication between the local node and its neighbors. The criteria include distance, power requirements, retry history (reliability), throughput history, speed of transfer (net data rate), network delay, and data priority. Typically, there is an initialization procedure which is executed to determine the latitude and longitude of neighbors within a destination quadrant, and the criteria are weighted in accordance with preselected preferences to establish, at each subject node, a link quality (LQ) factor for each possible destination local to the subject node. The link quality factor may be used as, or otherwise be used to establish, a metric.

In a preferred form, the metric may be used in to establish a hierarchy among possible local destinations based on the maximum forward progress attainable using the minimum amount of power, herein termed optimum forward progress or OFP. This routing protocol has been found to be superior in very large networks in applications requiring a high rate of packet throughput.

The invention will be better understood by reference to the following detailed description in connection with the accompanying drawings.

• Fig. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a generalized data network topology;
• Fig. 2 is a flow chart describing the basic steps of the invention for use with specific routing algorithms;
• Fig. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a general node according to the present invention; and
• Fig. 4 is a flow chart of a specific routine according to the present invention.

In accordance with the invention, each node in a network is identifiable by location. Each packet is thereby able to be directed to a destination based primarily on location information contained in a header at the proper level of its data packet. A packet is organized as follows:
   ¦ L1H ¦ L2H ¦ L3H ¦ L4H ¦ data ¦ L1T ¦
where:

L

indicates "layer";

H

indicates "header";

T

indicates "tailer."

Layer 1, is the "physical layer," which is responsible for transferring data in a packet in error-free form. If a packet is received which contains an indication of error, the packet is discarded and not acknowledged by the receiver. When sending data, the physical layer performs no error checking, it is not responsible for resending failed packets, and it is not responsible for any form of packet routing. A suitable Layer 1 is organized as follows:$$\frac{\text{¦ Layer 1 Header ¦}}{\text{¦ Start Flag ¦ DL ¦}}\text{···}\frac{\text{¦ Layer 1 Tailer ¦}}{\text{¦ CRC ¦ End Flag ¦}}$$ where:

Start Flag

is a unique one-byte word signalling the start of a packet;

DL

is the Data Length in two bytes;

CRC

is a two-byte long cyclic redundancy check word field calculated from the beginning of the data length field through the CRC field;

End Flag

is a unique one-byte word signalling termination of the packet.

Nonflag pad characters which convey no information may precede or trail a packet for timing delay and synchronization without affecting the protocol.

A complete header must contain at least the following information: the address of the ultimate destination in geographic coordinates and the address of the best next hop in geographic coordinates. Only the address of the best next hop is changed when a packet is forwarded. At least part of this information is contained in the Layer 2 header.

The Layer 2 header or ISO link layer header comprises the destination address, the source address, a protype field (packet protocol and type) and a frame identification. A suitable Layer 2 header is organized as follows:
   ¦ DA ¦ SA ¦ PT ¦ FID ¦
where:

DA

is Destination Address (5 bytes);

SA

is Source Address (5 bytes);

PT

is packet protocol or packet type (1 byte);

FID

is the frame identifier (FID) field.

In accordance with the invention, the destination address is the geographic coordinates of the next local destination and the source address is the geographic coordinates of the local node. Further in accordance with the invention, the destination address of a received packet becomes the source address of the same packet on its retransmission, and the destination address for retransmission is selected by the local node based on analysis of the metrics used to establish optimum forward progress.

The field designated Destination Address is a five-byte address of the desired destination of the local specific packet at the current time in its current form, that is, the Layer 2 destination. It is not the ultimate destination of the packet. Similarly, the field designated Source Address is a five-byte address of the layer 2 source node, the address to which an immediate acknowledgment of receipt is directed. The protype is an eight bit field further broken down into two parts: a four bit protocol designation field and a four bit packet type designation field. The frame identifier field is used to uniquely identify the data frame (DATA) and its related acknowledgment field (ACK) as well as its related acknowledgment of acknowledgment field (ACK-ACK). Packets containing ACK and ACK-ACK are short, since the full data information need not be employed. What is needed are the protype, frame identifier, destination address and source address.

According to the invention, the wide area network (WAN) destination address and source address are also express in terms of geographic coordinates. In a specific embodiment of the invention, the ultimate destination address is contained in a Layer 3 header, which is used for routing a packet between any source and any destination within a wide area net or between wide area nets.

A suitable Layer 3 header is organized as follows:
   ¦ WANDA ¦ WANSA ¦ PT ¦ WANFID ¦ LUCK ¦ where:

WANDA

is the Wide Area Net Destination Address (5 bytes);

WANSA

is Wide Area Net Source Address (5 bytes);

PT

is packet protocol or packet type (1 byte);

WANFID

is the frame identifier field (2 bytes)

LUCK

is 1 byte for indicating luck status.

According to the invention, upon receipt of a packet at any node, the Layer 3 header is examined to determine if the WANDA in the header corresponds to the WANDA of the node. If the WANDAs are not identical, the node routes the packet by forwarding it to a next hop in the network in accordance with the protocol supported by the node which is requested by the packet. Several routing protocols are contemplated. The "CROW" protocol is a protocol calling for forwarding in the most direct route, i.e., "as the crow flies." The "WILDFIRE" protocol is a protocol calling for broadcasting the packet to virtually all addressable nodes from the local node, i.e., to spread a packet "like a wildfire." In the wildfire protocol, where several identical packets may be circulating simultaneously, it is helpful to uniquely identify each packet via the WANFID so that a receiving node can identify whether the packet has been heard before and hence need not be forwarded. Other protocols may be defined as need arises or as technology develops for use in an installed system.

The luck byte is analogous to a "time-to-live" field in other protocols. It is set by the originator and algorithmically decremented by each transferring repeater until it reaches zero and is "out of luck." It is then treated in accordance with any predefined error handling mechanism. The luck concept prevents wayward packets from endlessly propagating around a network.

The Layer 4 header for data packets contains information needed for delivery of a packet within a local area net (LAN). Within the Layer 4 header is the device identifier, that is, the LAN destination address. A suitable Layer 4 header is organized as follows:
   ¦ DA ¦ SA ¦ PT ¦ where:

DA

is Destination Address (5 bytes);

SA

is Source Address (5 bytes);

PT

is packet protocol or packet type (1 byte).

Routing a response back to the source merely involves swapping the LAN Destination Address for the LAN Source Address, assuming the Layer 3 header has been properly rebuilt for the return.

Each device in a network thus has a primary address, namely, the WAN Address, and a secondary address, namely, the LAN Address. The WAN address is the unique latitude and longitude designation of each repeater node, within one second (20 meters) of geographic accuracy. All devices within the LAN of the repeater node use the WAN Address of the repeater node as their WAN Address.

The advantage of use of encoded geographic coordinates is the complete elimination of any requirement for creation and maintenance of routing tables, i.e., a table which contains information on the best path to any destination in the network. The overhead for maintaining a routing table, which increases as the square of the number of nodes, is thereby eliminated. Since direction is inherent in the addressing scheme according to the invention, routing tables are eliminated in favor of decision making at each repeater node on routing in accordance with the requested protocol embedded in the received packets.

It is recognized that multiple use of the same undifferentiated WAN address raises questions about uniqueness of topological designation. It is therefore assumed that the WAN addresses are all unique, and assignments of WAN addresses are so chosen. The LAN addresses provide the device names reachable at each WAN address, and they are also assumed and defined to be unique for each WAN address.

Referring now to Figure 1, there is shown a data network 10 in a topology in accordance with the invention. The network 10 consists of repeater nodes labelled A through Z interconnected by paths 12 representing allowable communication links between nodes. Consider for example data arriving at a local node J with a destination of node Y. Routing to node Y according to the invention would be most directly routed via node P and node V. Each node would consult its internal neighbor list and route data in turn to the next neighbor node on the path to destination Y.

Alternatively, consider data arriving or originating at local node Q with a destination W. While the geographic location of W is close, since each node is identifiable as according to its latitude and longitude or other geographic location, a more tortuous path is required to route the data, namely via R to X to Z to W.

Figure 2 is a flow chart illustrating the basic routing method at each node. At each node, the data is first received (Step S1), and then it is determined whether the data is intended for this node (Step S2). If it is, the data is processed at the local node (Step S3). If the packet is not for this node, it is determined if the packet is for the LAN or the WAN subnet (S4). If for the LAN (i.e., the WAN address is the same as the node performing the routing), the packet is re-built (S5) and queued for transmission on the LAN (S6). If the WAN address in the packet is not the same as the node doing the routing, the packet is re-built for a WAN routing (S7), enqueued (S8) and passed to the 'scan for link' algorithm (S9 and Fig. 4)When the link is found that will accept the packet, the packet is sent (S10). Should the packet not be able to be routed in a forward manner an error process is initiated. For example, the local node may inform the source, namely the previous node in the path, to resend the packet via another node. Alternatively, the local node may return the received packet to the source node for rerouting using an entirely different routing protocol.

As a part of the forwarding decision, a local table maintained by the local node is examined to determine the best next hop. The best next hop may be based on various criteria including distance, output power required to establish communication, retry history (reliability), throughput history, speed of transfer (net data rate), network delay, data priority, link utilization percentage, closeness to desired destination, closeness to desired bearing, randomness, closeness to local bearing, a link quality factor and the like. In a specific embodiment, optimum forward progress is the primary criterion, that is, maximum forward progress attainable using the least amount of power and taking into account characteristics of the system. This is determined by calculating the metric between the destination coordinate and the neighbor node and selecting the optimum metric among all neighboring nodes of the subject node. The power requirement may be observed by simply noting whether a "sent" packet reaches the next node; if not, there was not enough power. The packet is then sent to the best node based on this power limitation, or the system automatically increases power so the packet will reach the best node. Typically, there is an initialization procedure which is executed to determine the latitude and longitude of neighbors within a destination quadrant, and the criteria are weighted in accordance with preselected protocol criteria. The criteria may be adjusted from time to time or automatically based on experience with the network.

History of communication is an important factor in developing and maintaining a local table. For example, history of communication with a dead end node would provide an indication to the local node that such a dead end node is not useful for forwarding packets.

Routing errors are identified by type and processed accordingly. There are for example three types of routing errors, Bad Destination, Can't Get There, Retried Out. Bad Destination errors are errors where the destination node is incorrectly specified. A packet containing a Bad Destination designator will have searched for the destination until it is discarded by the network.

Can't Get There errors are similar to Bad Destination errors, except that a proper destination address has been specified. For example, if no provision is provided to get around a topological obstacle, such an error would be generated. The packet would require retransmission via a more robust protocol if delivery of the packet is to be achieved.

Retry Out errors occur when the network is too busy to handle all packets. Undelivered packets require retransmission at a later time.

Once a decision is made as to which neighbor node is to receive the packet, the local node changes the packet header address by putting the address of the best next hop into an appropriate field of the header and then sending it to the interim destination or neighbor node.

The process is repeated for each hop as the receiving neighbor node becomes the local node for the subject packet. The process continues until the packet finds its ultimate destination.

The process of error handling is much simplified because the header inherently carries with it sufficient information to compute distance metrics between a packet and its destination.

The method according to the invention can be used with a variety of routing algorithms and protocols. For example, a maximum forward progress (MFP) routing algorithm may be used. According to the MFP algorithm, a node attempts to send data to its neighbor closest to the final destination. In this algorithm, the transmitter power is selected to be whatever is required to establish the link. This technique has particular advantage where transit time is critical.

Alternatively, and preferably in packet applications, a nearest forward progress (NFP) algorithm may be used. In a nearest forward progress algorithm, the local node utilizes the minimum power necessary to link with a neighbor and still make some forward progress. This technique has particular advantage in dense and complex networks where transit time is less critical. It has been found that overall network throughput improves in a very active network when the nearest forward progress technique is employed, as compared to conventional techniques which create large numbers of collisions due to large numbers of active packets in the same broadcast area. This represents a departure from conventional theory which preferred to cause data to be moved as far as possible with each hop on grounds that minimizes relays would avoid delay. A nearest forward progress algorithm uses a channel more efficiently in packet radio communications because transmitters can use lower power and are less likely to be heard by unaddressed stations and therefore are less likely to cause interference due to collisions.

Another useable algorithm is the flooding sink or "Wildfire" algorithm, mentioned hereinabove. In the flooding sink algorithm, the local node routes data to all neighbors (other than the source node). Some directional bias may be applied in order to limit the range within a destination quadrant or hemisphere to which data packets are sent. To prevent packets from circulating indefinitely and to eliminate redundant rebroadcast, a packet is only rebroadcast when heard for the first time.

Finally, a biased random routing algorithm may be employed. The biased random routing algorithm is the simplest routing algorithm. It distributes data relatively quickly and preferably it is biased to deliver data to only one hemisphere so that data is sent to anyone in the correct general direction of the destination.

In a more detailed embodiment, the present invention can be viewed in the context of the seven-layer OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) architecture and protocols in connection with HDLC, the standard bit-transparent data link control for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint connections. The invention is intentionally designed to be independent of any specific apparatus so long as it operates within the standard. In an exemplary implementation as shown in Fig. 3, a network could comprise a plurality of nodes 20, each consisting of a standard terminal node controller (TNC) (such as a TAPR TNC-2) implemented as an ordinary AX.25 digipeater node broadcasting through an ordinary VHF transceiver 24 (such as a Kenwood Model 7930) and using an optional personal computer 26 (such as an IBM PC-XT) as a terminal emulator and running appropriate software in the TNC 22 and/or the computer 26 according to the invention. The transceiver 24 typically includes means for measuring, directly or indirectly, the strength of a received signal, and imbedded in the structure of the packet according to the invention is sufficient information to identify location from which distances can be computed.

The invention has now been explained with reference to specific embodiments. Other embodiments will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. It is therefore not intended that this invention be limited except as indicated by the appended claims.